When ever lumber is even whispered on this board uneducated retards come out of the wood work acting like the fucking Lorax. Yes the lumber industry needs some more regulations, but wood is like the best material for the environment. you can either>have a few young growth forests that are cyclically harvested for a compleatly renewable resource that's completely renewable and has thousands of uses.or>dig massive quarry's full of arsenic for concrete and steel, and drill for oil to make cheap Chinese plastic shit that will pollute the environment worse than cutting down a few trees.you cant have your cake and eat it if your anti-wood go live in your concrete cubical and eat bugs.
so mad about something that never happened, we have /out/ job threads>it was real in my mind
>>2789852>>2772247>>2765483>>2765484>go to /out/ job thead>look inside>anti-timber retards
>>2789862why didn't you make a "pro sheet metal" instead, who the fuck is dumb enough not to know the difference between timber and forestry? oh yea OP.take a long walk, off a short pier.
>>2789845Define Renewable.I'm betting you wont.>>2789918Timber shills are the dumbest piece of shit retards and absolutely disingenuous. I guarantee OP will not define renewable but continue to beat his drum about it.Imagine living in 2024 and pretending that a stick house that blows over in a strong wind or gets crushed under a fallen tree that is expensive to heat and cool is "the best technology has to offer"
>>2789862>Can't counter the arguments with facts and logic>Gets so mad about it they make another thread to continue to not counter it with facts and reasonLOLYou're just mad you can't win an argument.Define Renewable.Protip: you can't.
>>2789927>Imagine living in 2024 and pretending that a stick house that blows over in a strong wind or gets crushed under a fallen tree that is expensive to heat and cool is "the best technology has to offer"Not OP, but what is the best that technology has to offer?
>>2789984Depends where you live. Local materials are ideal and it isn't one size fits all for all regions. I can tell you what one of the worst building methods is: Stick frame.There's all sorts of methods from monolithic domes to earth ships. Look up hemp-Crete houses or earthen construction. Houses are built for the environment.I kinda don't believe your not OP though--timber shills love to make tangents and OP is desperate to not define Renewable and probably won't.
>>2789845Without the steel and cocrete cubicals there would be way more land lost to houses, lawnmowers and infrastructure though.>>2789927>>2789993>stick houseCheap american dream problem. You can build better wood frame houses that last centuries.
>>2789845>a few
All these redditors took retard op's bait. Lol
>>2789845Industrial forestry is harmful to the biodiversity and in turn the sustainability.>>2789932>Define Renewable.>Protip: you can't.Wood is renewable as it's from procreating life. Nutrients for it recycle with surrounding life. The whole system is driven by sunlight.Please refrain from valueless shitposting like this.
>>2790067So is oil renewable? It's from natural stuff that grew from sunlight.
>>2790070Oil is classified as a fossil fuel since it is accumulated under millenia.You could find much benefit from a modern elementary education.
>>2789927>Renewable: “capable of beingreplaced by natural, ecologicalcycles or sound managementpractices.” (Merriam-Webster)kill yourself brosive
>>2790067I agree that its often done poorly but I think proper sustainable wood harvesting is our best bet ecologically. like a forest can recover in a way that a quarry or mine never can. not to mention mass-timber advancements are leading to dozens of new uses for timber and its byproducts/
>>2790089I agree. Wood is the best in areas it can be sourced locally. It can be fire treated for a mould and rot resistant surface. Cross-laminated timber (CLT) demonstrates properties making it suitable for bigger buildings. It should be able to replace concrete and steel for a much smaller climate impact and warmer end products.
>>2790096CLT is really amazing, also its very good in fires. the outer layer chars creating a barrier for the fair and retaining more structural than steel would. increasing time for people to be rescued.
>>2789845It's mostly just one guy, if you didn't know. I call him the timberschizo. If you say or do anything that isn't complete naked-caveman-tier he accuses you of being a logger.
>>2790107It can't always be the same guy. I had a discussion a year ago with a guy who was very similar. it was a thread where a guy told a story about how beavers dammed a river on this guys land which ended up turning his houses foundation in to a marsh. long story short this guy basically said "kill yourself the beavers are more important. and though everyone should live in mud huts.
>>2790009Just what I predicted: a tangent.>>2790067Not a definition.Define renewable resource.>>2790070>>2790089This is you answering your own question and arguing with yourself.DEFINE RENEWABLE you disingenuous piece of shit.
>>2790096>>2790105>>2790107>>2790108Define Renewable. This is all circlejerking nonsense on a tangent that was predicted from the outset.
>>2790107yesThe guy that destroys you in every argument by not letting you get away with dishonesty.You cant and won't define renewable therfore proving me right about you and your method of arguing: yet again.
>>2790088I love that you cherry picked a portion of the definition.Renewable resources are replenished within a human lifetime--a forset isn't mature until several hundred years and therefore by defintion isn't reneewable.Tree != forestMost evergreens live for hundreds of years and don't reach their adult cycle for several centuries.Keep lying--That's the only way you timber shills win any arguments is to lie and cherry piclk.
>>2790157>>2790158>>2790159my bad: I forgot I have to be very specific with you fucks.Renewable Resourceis not the same asRenewableThey are different things and I'm looking for you to define "renewable resource" Which you won't.
>>2790108>Kill yourself the beavers are more important than some rich fuck with a cabin in the woods built too close to a watershed and wetlandsLOL, dude was right--based as fuck.Free fucking rent.
>>2790165>in modern times they can live up to about 70-100 years>humans fully mature at about ~25 years of age>a Douglas fir can live 500 + years>a Douglas fir are mature enough to harvest at about 30-60 years (within someones life time) your so confidently wrong I hope you get ground up by a fucking wood chipper.
>>2790327Define Renewable resource. You haven't done that yet.Tree != forestSo basically you still refuse to define what a renewable resource is and you're pretending a forest is a monocrop. I love that you also threw in "modern forest" because you're treating a managed forest as if it's natural and representative of how nature actually operates.So, you're forcing an artificial definition of tree maturity and forest maturity to fit the timber industry definitions and absolutely ignoring everything published about Lowland rainforests, mycology, water sheds and biodiversity.Moreover the entire reason you created this thread is because some random dude intellectually destroyed you a year ago about wetlands and beavers and you're still mad about it.Absolutely fucking priceless.Keep lying. You can't stop now you're in too deep.
>>2790327>I'm just pretending to be retarded
>>2790157>>2790158>>2790159>>2790165>>2790168>>2790332See what I mean? It's either a single schizo NEET or a series of bots programmed to call people timber shills
>>2790383You could just try answering the guy so he can shut the fuck up already.
>>2789845Total corporate shill death.>have a few young growth forests that are cyclically harvested for a compleatly renewable resource that's completely renewable and has thousands of usesThat would be great if it were the norm. Unfortunately, in real life timber companies are almost exclusively run by greedy fucks who are constantly pushing for logging rights to old growth forest which naturally has higher quality timber. Why would they constantly want rights to new land when they could be cyclically harvesting the metric fuckton of acres they already have access to? It's because they couldn't give a flying fuck about forest health or biodiversity, they just want that sweet sweet valuable old growth hardwood. Stick a chainsaw up your ass and rev it you corporate dick sucking faggot.
>>2790165>cut down trees>replant them again according to preserved reference area>cut them down againThe fuck don't you get?
>>2790649You should blame the government for allowing that to happen. Logging would be fine if they stuck to their set coups.
>>2790067>Industrial forestry is harmful to the biodiversity and in turn the sustainability.Industrial forestry in the USA is mainly taking pine from the Mississippi pine forests which are naturally not very biodiverse.Mississippi pine is plentiful and renewable. Ever driven from Memphis to Jackson? Lotsa wood
>>2791406Yes, that's called a monocrop.It isn't a forest and is shit for the environment: what don't you get?>>2790614They won't answer. Their whole argument is based on lying and deceit so giving any solid answers would undermine the only way they can win arguments: by being vapid, vague and primarily attacking. Defining their position clearly makes defending it untenable.They cant, and won't define Renewable Resource which is why it was my very first question.
>>2791407>Logging would be fineLogging is almost totally unnecessary in 2024. The only reason we do it is so private equity firms can rob people blind of natural resources and lie about it. They force people to use stick frame houses by using building code to make using anything else extremely difficult and expensive to get through the permitting process.>>2791421Define Renewable resource or shut the fuck up.You wont though. You don't even know what kind of pines grow in Mississippi.
>>2790614You think I haven't tried before in other threads?
>>2791474>when you don't even have 2 brain cells to rub together so you splice your last one and just smash them together ntma
>>2791407there is no separation between corporations and the governments that regulate them when family members can hold positions in either sector simultaneouslybribery exists and is in widescale usethe people that make law are allowed to socially interact with those that stand to benefit from a lawlaw and policy makers are allowed to have financial interests in external private enterprisesthere exists laws to prevent these things already but I have yet to hear of a high profile enforcement of them on a government official in the last two decades, if they have happened then they have flown under the radarfor all intents and purposes, blaming one is the same as blaming the other
Not either of those assholes, but let me try to define "renewable": a resource that can be exploited without depleting it. Logging an area and planting new trees would make for a renewable source of timber. A tree plantation isn't a forest, though. Cutting down a forest and replanting the trees, only to cut them down again a couple of years later isn't renewable or sustainable. Tree plantations aren't forests. You don't get old growth mature forests back by planting new trees with the intent of harvesting them. You'd need to leave the area alone for centuries. Cutting down trees in previously unlogged forests isn't renewable. It's destroying forests and replacing them with tree plantations.
>>2790157>arguing with yourselfClearly you are not needed in this discussion then
>>2791792>>2792334I get it: you got destroyed yet again and are mad about it.Cry more.
>>2791794This is the correct interpretation of understanding forests as a resource and pretending monocropping trees is a renewable system.They won't define renewable resource because it makes it obvious they're talking about monocropping and not forests. Loggers are cancer.
